Pension Forfeiture in Baltimore

"My e-mail boxes are full of angry letters about [former Baltimore mayor] Dixon's retirement package being left intact. The deal to resolve this case and get Ms. Dixon out of office seems to have sparked more public emotion than the mayor's transgressions." (Dan Rodricks' column in the Baltimore Sun)

One of the ugliest aspects of local government ethics is the desire for retribution that expresses itself again and again in the form of a demand for pension forfeiture. I wrote about this eighteen months ago, but with the public baying at Dixon's heels, I think it's worth raising again.

There were no protests against what Dixon did. In fact, many people felt she was being discriminated against, that all the wonderful things she had done for the city were being ignored, even though she was only accused of having stolen a thousand dollars' worth of gift cards.

But there was a protest this week in front of City Hall, according to an article in the Baltimore Sun.

(Baltimore Sun photo by Kenneth K. Lam)

One protester called the deal that allowed Dixon to keep her pension "an abomination." Another is quoted as saying, "What kind of a punishment did she get? Every year Baltimore is going to have a much better use for $83,000 than paying her."

In Maryland, pension forfeiture resides in the state constitution, that's how important it is to people:

Article XV, Sect. 2. Any elected official of the State, or of a county or of a municipal corporation who during his term of office is convicted of or enters a plea of nolo contendere to any crime which is a felony, or which is a misdemeanor related to his public duties and responsibilities and involves moral turpitude for which the penalty may be incarceration in any penal institution, shall be suspended by operation of law without pay or benefits from the elective office. During and for the period of suspension of the elected official, the appropriate governing body and/ or official authorized by law to fill any vacancy in the elective office shall appoint a person to temporarily fill the elective office, provided that if the elective office is one for which automatic succession is provided by law, then in such event the person entitled to succeed to the office shall temporarily fill the elective office. If the conviction becomes final, after judicial review or otherwise, such elected official shall be removed from the elective office by operation of Law and the office shall be deemed vacant. If the conviction of the elected official is reversed or overturned, the elected official shall be reinstated by operation of Law to the elective office for the remainder, if any, of the elective term of office during which he was so suspended or removed, and all pay and benefits shall be restored.

So a mere misdemeanor related to public duties, where there is "moral turpitude" (any ethics violation in Baltimore, for instance), means no position, no pension, and no health care for the official and his or her family.

Ms. Dixon spent 22 years of her life in public service to Baltimore. She was hardly the most ethical of officials, but she did a lot more good than bad. Her pension was not offered to her as an extra, but was part of her pay, just as it is for everyone lucky enough to get a pension. She earned her conviction, but she also earned her pension.

Yes, any amount she stole from the city should be taken from her pension, if she were not able to pay it directly (this is the law in the states with more reasonable pension forfeiture laws, such as New Jersey and Connecticut). But Dixon is paying far more than what she stole, and it is not coming from her pension.

I consider pension forfeiture to be the capital punishment of government ethics, because although its supporters say it will prevent unethical conduct, it is actually based on feelings of retribution. Those protestors were not out there to prevent unethical conduct by other officials. What concerned them was their tax dollars going to a convicted official. They were out for blood.

Jay Hancock, in his Baltimore Sun column, is up in arms about Dixon's pension, and the deal she made to keep it. But it wasn't her who put herself in a position where she had to make a deal to hold on to the pension she had earned. It was people like Jay Hancock, who don't see the injustice of pension forfeiture, because they're blinded by the injustice of an official, even one convicted of stealing $1,000 in gift cards, holding on to a pension.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---